The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation

By Joy E. Hanna, Michael K. Tanenhaus, John C. Trueswell. 2003

404 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/94f6e5c5e232f86eacccee8ec7bbebe9bc09b613

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Sarah Brown-Schmidt
2. Rick Dale
3. Jennifer E. Arnold
4. William S. Horton
5. J. V. van Berkum
6. Alexia Galati
7. Martin J. Pickering
8. Simon Garrod

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Rick Dale
2. Jennifer E. Arnold
3. Simon Garrod
4. Martin J. Pickering
5. J. V. van Berkum
6. William S. Horton
7. Susan E. Brennan
8. Alexia Galati

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Rick Dale
2. Sarah Brown-Schmidt
3. Martin J. Pickering
4. Jennifer E. Arnold
5. Simon Garrod
6. J. V. van Berkum
7. William S. Horton
8. Alexia Galati

Citations in the corpus

• Looking To Understand: The Coupling Between Speakers' and Listeners' Eye Movements and Its Relationship to Discourse Comprehension (2005, background): “Participants engaged in a collaborative task reveal a remarkable sensitivity to the referential domains established by the task, the visual context, and the preceding conversation (Brown-Schmidt, Campana, & Tanenhaus, 2004; Clark & Krych, 2004; Hanna & Tanenhaus, 2004; Hanna, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell”
• Beyond common and privileged: Gradient representations of common ground in real-time language use (2012, background): “…potential referent when it had been previously mentioned in the conversation, is consistent with previous findings that interlocutors use representations of linguistic common ground to guide referential understanding (Brown-Schmidt et al., 2008; Brown-Schmidt, 2009b; also see Hanna et al., 2003).”
• Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production (2005, background): “In an analogous fashion, information associated with one’s interlocutor, made available through routine memory processes, could conceivably serve as another potential constraint (see also Hanna, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, 2003; Metzing & Brennan, 2003; Nadig & Sedivy, 2002).”
• Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, background): “The typical experimental scenario for studying the role of visual perspective is to have pairs of participants communicate about objects in a scene, where some objects are occluded from the perspective of one participant (Arnold, Trueswell, & Lawentmann, 1999 ; Hanna, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, 2003 ”
• Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?. (2010, background): “But the fact remains that not all the adaptations that partners make to one another while producing and interpreting utterances unfold slowly or take the form of repairs (Hanna & Tanenhaus, 2004; Hanna et al., 2003; Metzing & Brennan, 2003; Nadig & Sedivy, 2002).”
• The Neural Integration of Speaker and Message (2008, background): “…‘‘the cake mix’’) immediately depend on the perspective and other characteristics of the speaker (e.g., Trueswell & Tanenhaus, 2005; Hanna & Tanenhaus, 2004; Hanna et al., 2003), knowledge about the latter should be able to affect the specific ERP indices and neuronal systems associated with…”
• Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue (2004, background): “More recently, Hanna et al. (2003) found that listeners looked at an object in a display less if they knew that the speaker did not know of the object’s existence (see Nadig & Sedivy 2002, for a related study with 5–6 year old children).”
• Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception (2012, background): “This is consistent with arguments that talker-specific information guides interpretation of all spoken language (Brown-Schmidt, 2009 ; Dahan et al, 2008 ; Hanna, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, 2003 ), and is not limited to cases in which routine interpretation processes fail to arrive at a contextually ”
• Conversation and Coordinative Structures (2009, methodology): “Sebanz et al. (2006) suggest that the hypothesized shared representations would serve to facilitate the understanding of the actions of another (e.g., Blakemore & Decety, 2001; Richardson & Dale, 2005), predict the actions of others (e.g., Ramenzoni, Riley, Shockley, & Davis, 2008; Bosbach, Cole, Pr”